An abomination you say! And what makes a tar sand mine any different from a copper mine, or a coal mine or any strip mine? What makes Canada, and more specifically Alberta, a villain while West Virginia or Chile or Australia operate mines of similar scale and impact and are just seen as industrious people? How do you rectify criticizing our CO2 emissions while you remain silent about other sources, including some in California, that release more per barrel, and when environmental standards from 90% of oil exporters are a sad joke compared to Canada's? Don't look at Canada's oil for a moment, look at America's alternatives to it: they aren't particularly appealing.

Canada has never threatened America with freezing in the dark, you might be mixing that up with western Canadian opposition to Trudeau's New Energy Policy, during which some westerners threatened to cut eastern Canada off from Alberta oil and gas. Or perhaps you're mixing it up with the Arab price shocks in the 1970s. In any case, Canadian imports are not large enough to even plausibly threaten US energy supply.

You are right that America is moving towards energy self sufficiency, and I think that's fantastic. But its Canadian imports are also growing (see http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trend-lines/1021/where-does-the-u-s-g...). If you weren't so bitterly anti-Canadian, as demonstrated in your other posts, you would recognize that this is a good thing. Canadian crude is displacing oil from places like the middle east and Venezuela. These places have immense geopolitical baggage that go with them. Canada and the US share a similar culture and set of values and have been peaceful trading partners for generations. If America forces Canada to look elsewhere to sell its oil (like China) it would be one of the biggest foreign policy mistake of our lifetimes. Canada is one of the few growing sources of oil in the world. Couple that with the fact it's so close geographically and so friendly politically and economically and it's an absolute gift to American energy security. It is a huge competitive advantage to places like China that will only become more pronounced in the years ahead. Your opposition to it is foolish and short sighted.

What is missing from the article is the lengths to which the government is prepared to go to undermine democratic institutions (environmental review in the budget? really?), to undermine the electoral process, to stiffle debate in Parliament, to turn public hearings into a sham (several native groups have already made this point), to crush the public broadcaster to prevent dissident views from being aired, and to attack the freedom of speech of anyone who opposes what the oil companies want.

Even more than the second Bush administration, the Conservative Party is nothing but the Oil Industry in government, and they are prepared to stack the courts and defy every right guaranteed under the Charter of Rights for the benefit of the oil companies.

In their pursuit of Oil Company happiness, they are destroying our institutions of democratic government. That is the biggest cost.

First, pure bitumen is not being exported. It couldn't be, it doesn't flow. Bitumen exports are either upgraded to synthetic crude oil or diluted, usually with natural gas condensates, to allow it to flow. At that point, I don't see why it would be any more difficult to clean up a spill than conventional crude. Your claim about the number of jobs created is a little silly. Sure 50 people may work on the actual pipeline when it is operational but thousands will be involved making it, and thousands more will be involved refining the oil, marketing it, distributing it etc. Not to mention the tens of thousands of jobs in the US that are directly or indirectly (see http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/canadian-oil-sands-create-jobs-ga/n... which suggests 7,700 oil sands jobs will be created in Georgia alone). In Canada it's hundreds of thousands of jobs. And of course the oil itself is the fuel America's economy runs on, having a friendly, captive source of it close to home is of immeasurable benefit, especially when the future of global supply is so uncertain.

Second, the Chinese government is currently not buying any oil from the oil sands. There is no export channel to get it to any country other than the US, never mind China. China does have a number of investments in the oil sands, the only one that is currently producing significantly is Sinopec's 9% stake in Syncrude. So if anything, the oil is being sold BY the Chinese, not TO them.

Finally, your prediction that the NDP will form the next government by next year is a terrifying but thankfully far-fetched idea. For one (obvious) thing, the Conservatives are now a majority, meaning they are unlikely to call an election until it suits them or until the fixed election date four years after they were voted in - October 2015. As to the NDP's chances in this probably distant election, I think you overestate them. Layton was a brilliant and charismatic politician that let people forget the NDP's old-school labour base and history of provincial economic mismanagement. Mulclair has burst onto the scene transparently pitting east versus west on dubious economic claims that have earned him nothing but disagreement and criticism from most observers throughout the country. After this ugly start I would be extremely surprised if the NDP does better under his leadership than Layton's. In my opinion this is the NDP's high water mark, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Liberals took back most of what they lost to them in the last election.

This article fails to address one of the most critical issues with regard to the Northern Gateway project -- the environmental impact of the pipeline itself (not simply the fact that it carries oil from the tar sands).
The proposed pipeline will go through thousands of kilometers of pristine wilderness, in a geologically sensitive region prone to landslides and earthquakes. Furthermore it will take the oil to Kitamat which is at the end of a narrow inlet over 300km long. This is dangerous water to navigate and at great risk of spills. (Three years ago a large passenger ferry sunk in these waters).
These impacts should be added to the discussion.

Environmentalists are fighting a quixotic battle against tar sands oil production, and possibly against the interests of the environment. Like it or not, current oil prices make production of heavy tar sands oil economically viable. And as long as there is a large price disparity between the world price of oil and the price that tar sands oil producers can get for their product, there will be incentive for Canada to build whatever pipelines are necessary to bring the product to market. As it stands right now, excess tar sands oil is being moved by diesel-powered trains, which is costlier and less kind to the environment than transportaion by pipeline.

National Roundtable on the Economy & the Environment - gone.
Department of Fisheries & Ocean's water monitoring and research deciminated, with 5 junior scientists responsible for water monitoring for the entire country. World class research stations in marine & freshwater ecology made 'redundant' with a stroke of a pen. Entire EIA process stremlined. Label opponents terrorists.

Perceute foreign backed charities while foreign lobby (hi Koch brothers!) money pours in. Canada has in a generation turned into a high-functioning petro-state, ruled by the oil men... for the oil men.

What The Economist did not tell you is that the bitumen being exported is the heaviest form of crude that exists, making land and ocean cleanup far more difficult than refined oil. The project will create less than 50 full time jobs when it's complete.
Worse yet, the oil is being sold, not to corporations with boards of directors who have shareholders interests in their decisions, to the Chinese government which routinely violates the human rights of its citizens to keep in power.
The Prime Minister who is demonizing the opposition to this pipeline will likely be out office by next year, and the left-of-centre New Democratic Party (now the official opposition, will kill the deal as they have recently promised.

And there is no one like Brian Pelican. I've been all over the world too and I've yet to find a person with the pathological hatred of Canadians that Pelican has. Yes, he hates Canadians and no, he has nothing to say. He's like one of those 1950s bigots from the deep south, completely out of touch and out of step with the rest of civilized world.
Where are you from, Pelican? Do you live in some deep mountain 'holler' that has just been set up with Internet? I pity the place that has you as a citizen.

The article doesn't mention that Canada is already paying a steep price for its limited market access for bitumen. The small number of export options and back-ups at key distribution points like Cushing causes the price differential to increase due to market constriction - fewer refiners or distributors can access Canadian crude so there is less competition for it and prices drop. Western Canadian Select is already upgraded and of comparable quality WTI, yet still trades at $7 per barrel less. Crude bitumen trades at something like $40 per barrel less - some of this is justified by its high cost to refine, but clearly market access plays into this as well. Canada shouldn't just worry because of not having enough capacity in the future, this is an issue that is already costing the industry billions of dollars per year.

I think it is unlikely the situation will last, there is simply too much pressure being applied both by basic economic principles and the Canadian government: more pipelines will be built, both to the US and probably Canada's east or west coast for export overseas. Here are a number of articles on Canadian pipeline issues:

I think there is something to your argument, but there's more to the issue. Most importantly, if the US doesn't build enough capacity to accept Canadian oil, Canada will start exporting from one of its coasts, either by expanding existing pipelines or building new ones like Northern Gateway. You are right that the current situation is keeping Canadian crude cheaper than it would be otherwise, but Canada is the net loser in this situation and Canadian exporters will seek to re-balance things one way or another. In the long run, equalization with world oil markets is inevitable.

The other thing is that although access to world markets via the gulf of Mexico would mean some of the crude would go to other countries, in practice the great majority of it is likely to stay in the US, and that share is only likely to get bigger as world supply tightens.

The scale of the transition suggests that oil will be critical to the U.S. for decades to come, notwithstanding the increase in natural gas. The American way of life (and the Canadian, European, and increasingly the Chinese) is based on oil. Oil is not used only to power vehicles. Plastics, lubricants, fertilizers, etc. are other important uses. America will either use Canadian oil, or Middle Eastern oil. I fail to see why we should let countries with authoritarian regimes be the only ones that benefit from oil production.

Vancouver's Mayor Gregor Robertson has had his election campaign funded by various U.S. ecofundmentalist foundations and a couple of U.S. ex-pats who have guilty money to burn . So he is somewhat obligated to carry forward their message.

Meanwhile , copious amounts of coal are exported through Canadian ports to the Far East.

The sensible approach here would be to explore lower carbon emission extraction processes. As usual , that would still involve industrial activity which these quasi-marxist eco-fundamebtalist organizations ( read "environmentalists") have no interest in.

More biased nonfactual reporting by The Economissed. Another reason to let my 60 year subscription lapse for sure. Some critical points missed:
1. The IPCC theory "anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming" is NOT proven. What has been proven is that many of the lead IPCC researchers are fraudsters. Even U of East Anglia and Penn State performed fraudulently in their investigations into the emails of Drs. Jones and Mann respectively.
2. Pembina Institute referenced in the article refuses to debate the proof of the IPCC theory and also is extremely biased against the oil sands and in favor of the IPCC theory (like The Economissed).
3. No supporter of the IPCC theory will debate any skeptic as to the IPCC being proven because they know their lies would be publicly revealed.
4. Obama would rather continue to import heavy crude from his "likeness" Hugo Chavez of Venezuela than cleaner oil sands crude produced under better environmental conditions and regulations.

To stop production of more than half of the nation's oil because of greens' fancy? Conservative or not, no government would agree. A more Lefty government would probably use different side dish of rhetoric, but to the same result. Screw the greens!

Whilst I agree with the idea that environmental concerns need to be ignored in the case of these tar sands, anyone who does not believe that CO2 causes global warming probably shouldnt be a TE subscriber and should instead restrict themselves to reading tabloids and other junk news that they agree with.

A radical transportation and infrastructure solution to the Keystone XL Project:

No sane person would want the petrochemical pipeline through their backyard or city.

Everyone wants a High Speed Rail connection through their cities—however this is a pipe dream since no funding is available.

A pipeline project would link Canada to Mexico in a broad belt over America’s midsection.

A pipeline has eminent domain and a 100 meter swath of land stretching for thousands of miles.

SOLUTION: Combine the Pipeline project with a High Speed Rail Line. Build and permit them simultaneously to save costs. Allow power grid and telecommunication links to piggyback the corridor and help underwrite costs. Even consider a private toll expressway. Stack them.

This would reroute the pipeline to nearby major cities and connect Winnipeg, Minneapolis/ St. Paul, Omaha, Topeka, Wichita, Oklahoma City, Dallas/ Ft. Worth, Houston and New Orleans with gleaming bullet trains.

This would be the spine of the first HSR project in America. And spurs would connect Chicago, Austin, Denver, San Antonio, and St. Louis. It could enable HSR rail connections for up to 25% of America Population with dozens of its most important cities for the nation's first HSR. It would also connect internationally in Canada and Mexico encouraging North American wide HSR.

Keystone Pipeline would go from being a dirty petrochemical refinery project into a Prestige Project that helps rebuild the national infrastructure. And allow green corridors for transportation. And renew many dying Rustbelt Cities. And best of all it would be funded on the backs of the Oil Companies. It is win-win.

This is an environmental activist website. There are a number of issues with the "facts" as presented, most glaringly the total lack of comparison to other industries including other strip mines, which is what I thought you were driving at.

There are legitimate and serious environmental questions raised by oil sands development. Natural gas use and CO2 emissions are among them. Impact on water, land and biodiversity is generally overblown by environmentalists - none has been shown to be seriously threatened by oil sands development, especially when they're considered at the immense scale of Canada's north.

But if you're going to resort to propaganda, you should at least read it from both sides:

There is nothing like an article about Canada that will attract Canadians like flies, complaining about bias and this and that, nitpicking the author to death. Whining about lack of fairness.
I have traveled to 38 countries and have lived in 4. I can truly say that I have never encountered a more narcissistic bunch of people anywhere.

Frankly the thing we ought to be doing is becoming entirely self-sufficient in energy. We have more than enough resources to do so. What's holding us back is that far too many people have their heads shoved up their butts.